The article feels more like satire than encyclopedic. It does not discuss at all the reasons some people consider meritocracy "a myth" that is not happening, but it lists many negative takes from different people. That makes it subjective and biased.
Is meritocracy a good idea? Not discussed, but quite obviously it is: people with the competency and putting the effort should be more successful than the people without competency.
Is it happening? No, for different reasons in different places. In politics, if a party is sending a complete idiot as a candidate, it will be voted by the party fanatics no matter what (not talking about US, but about Earth in general). In companies corruption and specific external factors influences hiring and promotions based on criteria other than competency and results.
Is the article talking seriously about anything? No. Failed.
The article feels more like satire than encyclopedic. It does not discuss at all the reasons some people consider meritocracy "a myth" that is not happening, but it lists many negative takes from different people. That makes it subjective and biased.
Is meritocracy a good idea? Not discussed, but quite obviously it is: people with the competency and putting the effort should be more successful than the people without competency.
Is it happening? No, for different reasons in different places. In politics, if a party is sending a complete idiot as a candidate, it will be voted by the party fanatics no matter what (not talking about US, but about Earth in general). In companies corruption and specific external factors influences hiring and promotions based on criteria other than competency and results.
Is the article talking seriously about anything? No. Failed.
[flagged]